It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why The Left Should Be Upset About The Cohen Raid

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

That's so funny. Tell that to manafort, Gates and that Dutch guy who is already in jail.




posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Well, yeah... any "assumption" is ridiculous. But I didn't make any assumptions. I stated alternatives to YOUR assumptions.

Your assumption requires a greater leap in logic than mine since there is no proof whatsoever that Mueller is corrupt. My assumption relies on the fact that Mueller is trying to do his job properly, which frankly, is the most reasonable one to to make, provided no evidence of corruption is available.


And, by definition, it wouldn't be me moving goalposts... it's Mueller/Rosenstein moving the goalposts by getting someone else to do their dirty work for them, and hence avoid the "goalposts" getting in their way.

No. It's definitely you moving the goal posts around.


Nope. Not me! I have and am demanding complete transparency by all government officials. That's not undermining anything -- except potential corruption by those "investigating." And as long as those investigators are undermining the investigation of their activities -- i.e., refusing to provide the docs and records subpoena'd by the House -- their credibility is zilch. They have already proven to me by their own words and actions that THEY cannot be trusted.

Do you know how unusual it is to investigate an investigation that is currently ongoing? When investigations are under suspicion of having been conducted improperly, you wait until it is finished and the ENTIRE investigation can be reviewed as one. The fact that they are trying to investigate the investigation while it is ongoing REEKS of being a distraction.


I believe what you are really asking is why I haven't complained about only Trump's lack of transparency. Because in reality I have been demanding such transparency from everyone. And "everyone" includes Trump.

Nope. I didn't stutter. I have literally NEVER seen you even mention a concern about how Trump has rolled back a lot of transparency steps that Obama implemented. The only thing I see you care about is investigating investigators because of an assumption of mistrust in the investigators. You seem to do a FANTASTIC job of convincing yourself not to trust people critical of Trump but never seem to question Trump on his transparency and possible corruption. Hell, Trump lies more often than the people you said you don't trust have ever lied and you still seem to trust him more than them.
edit on 11-4-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
First and foremost the constitution. The 4th and 6th amendments were violated pretty underhandedly. But we know they don't care about the constitution they want to get trump, regardless of cost. Remember, this is the ends justify the means crowd.


I only half-heartedly subscribe to this possibility, although I've said similar things myself in other threads.

But I was listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano on the radio on my way into work this morning, and he made some good points that I will dumb down (because of memory) here:
    - Cohen seems to have received the $130,000 via a bank loan in order to pay off Daniels. Ethically speaking (and possibly legally speaking), this is not something that an attorney can do, paying off someone on behalf of a client (Trump, in this case)

    - If so, a bank would not give a loan under the basis of "hush money," so he probably misrepresented why he needed the loan, therefore it's possible/probable that Mueller discovered evidence of bank fraud

    - Also, if any of this was dealt with electronically, there is probably evidence of wire fraud

    - Also also, if any of this was dealt with via USPS, there is probably evidence of mail fraud

    - Federal judges who are approached for warrants ask questions like: Is this person a public enemy?; Can't you get this by other means?; Is a grand jury sitting?; Did they issue a subpoena that he didn't comply with?; Can't you get the bank records from the bank?; etc.

    - The answers to that convinced the federal judge to sign FOUR search warrants, so it must be damning against Cohen to allow 5:30am raids

    - A "return"--a list of everything that they seize in the raid--is prepared by the investigatory agents (FBI in this case) and given to the judge who signed the warrant

    - The "return" is given to a vetting team that removes any seized items not considered relevant to the prosecution of the case for which the warrant was signed--in NY, this team is a team of three federal prosecutors that are unrelated to prosecuting the case

    - After that, the relevant documents are provided to the actual prosecutor(s) of the case

    - A big point made is this: Once Cohen is indicted on charges, he doesn't negotiate a plea deal with the federal prosecutor(s) in NY, he negotiates it with Mueller!

    - Also, if the campaign knew about this at the time, it's possible that this is considered beneficial to the campaign which would break campaign finance laws...that has yet to be shown that it was known about

I lied...I started listing this by memory, but then went to a recording that I made of the discussion, so this is all accurate to what Napolitano said.

And it all makes sense, and discusses a few parts of the process that I was fuzzy on or didn't know (like that it would come back to Mueller for a plea deal, assuming that all of this is accurate).

So, yes, while there is still in my mind an intent on Mueller's behalf to be using this process as a way to find things that he couldn't have otherwise, there has been no wrongdoing at this point on behalf of Mueller, especially if all of that speculation about the bank loan ends up being accurate--Cohen should be charged for that stuff, and the campaign-finance issue as well, if that ends up being applicable.

But the reality is that, yet again, this is still nothing tying Trump to "Russian collusion," so this whole thing is irrelevant to anything of substance with Trump--the target is Cohen only, judging by the actions of the FBI as it pertains to the executions of the warrants.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea




Okay. Don't know and don't care


Great. I stopped reading your post right there. Hope you didn't have anything important to say.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Your assumption requires a greater leap in logic than mine since there is no proof whatsoever that Mueller is corrupt. My assumption relies on the fact that Mueller is trying to do his job properly, which frankly, is the most reasonable one to to make, provided no evidence of corruption is available.


Nope. I haven't assumed anything. I have only pointed out the potential for corruption and the lack of transparency to know either way... therefore, corruption is most definitely on the table.

Further, there is a very big difference between "evidence" and "proof." And while we do not have the transparency to know if there is proof, we do have plenty of facts constituting evidence of wrongdoing and corruption. And not just in this particular instance pertaining to Trump.

But the bottom line is the same: It is not up to us to decide who we "believe." It is up to them to provide the evidence and proof for us to know.


Do you know how unusual it is to investigate an investigation that is currently ongoing? When investigations are under suspicion of having been conducted improperly, you wait until it is finished and the ENTIRE investigation can be reviewed as one. The fact that they are trying to investigate the investigation while it is ongoing REEKS of being a distraction.


Oh dear Lord! I cannot even wrap my head around that logic. If wrongdoing is occurring, then it needs to be stopped immediately... period.


Nope. I didn't stutter. I have literally NEVER seen you even mention a concern about how Trump has rolled back a lot of transparency steps that Obama implemented. The only thing I see you care about is investigating investigators because of an assumption of mistrust in the investigators. You seem to do a FANTASTIC job of convincing yourself not to trust people critical of Trump but never seem to question Trump on his transparency and possible corruption. Hell, Trump lies more often than the people you said you don't trust have ever lied and you still seem to trust him more than them.


That sounds about right -- at least the part about me never singling out Trump. And while you may not have "seen" it, I have criticized "Team Trump" and "Trump et al" much the same way I have criticized "Team Obama" and "Obama et al." Because I know better than to believe that anyone does anything alone in DC. The critters operate in packs.

Offhand, I cannot think of anything Trump has done more or worse than Obama in terms of rolling back "a lot of transparency steps that Obama implemented." Actually, I cannot think of any transparency steps that Obama implemented... In fact, exactly the opposite. From where I'm sitting, no one has prosecuted and persecuted more whistleblowers than Team Obama. That's not transparency. And quite honestly, I hope I never do single out any one person because it's not the person that matters. If it's wrong for one then it's wrong for everyone -- past, present and future. So no, I won't single out one person and give a free pass to everyone else.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Good for him. He is quite possibly wrong. At least he is not outright correct.
The rules for special counsel are regulated. What I understand is that trump would have to write a new regulation and get Congress to pass it.
What do you think his chances at that are?



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


But I was listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano on the radio on my way into work this morning, and he made some good points that I will dumb down (because of memory) here:


Thank you very VERY much for this! I'll have to read a couple more times -- maybe more -- to grasp all the whys and wherefores, but it's already helping me wrap my head around the whole situation.

And that means, naturally, that I might have some questions for you after I mull this over a bit



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


He is quite possibly wrong.


The author of the law is wrong? Because the one who wrote the law doesn't know what he wrote? Okay.

Now I KNOW that YOU have nothing important to say.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Top congressmen are saying they will simply appoint another special counsel if trump fires Mueller. He has already proposed the idea three times now.
Last summer when they raided Paul Manaforts house. Last December when he learned of the subpoena of Deutsche Bank records and then again in Monday when they raided Cohen.
Funny how he only threatens this as a purely self defensive measure. When the investigation gets too close to him. Yeah he's so concerned with the country.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: bender151

All righty then...

Rolls eyes.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: howtonhawky

No That was what the magazine paid the playboy bunny. Stormy only got 130k



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Dfairlite

They Should be , What Goes Around , Comes Around ..........

Lock them up! Lock them up! Sound familiar?



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
Nope. I haven't assumed anything. I have only pointed out the potential for corruption and the lack of transparency to know either way... therefore, corruption is most definitely on the table.

HA! No you haven't. You are quite clearly assuming that these entities are thoroughly corrupt and working from there.


Further, there is a very big difference between "evidence" and "proof." And while we do not have the transparency to know if there is proof, we do have plenty of facts constituting evidence of wrongdoing and corruption. And not just in this particular instance pertaining to Trump.

Lies.


But the bottom line is the same: It is not up to us to decide who we "believe." It is up to them to provide the evidence and proof for us to know.

Actually investigations and evidence collected within tend to be kept secret as it isn't the public's business to know these things until they are presented in court.


That sounds about right -- at least the part about me never singling out Trump. And while you may not have "seen" it, I have criticized "Team Trump" and "Trump et al" much the same way I have criticized "Team Obama" and "Obama et al." Because I know better than to believe that anyone does anything alone in DC. The critters operate in packs.

This isn't even what I was talking about. I SPECIFICALLY mentioned Trump reducing government transparency that Obama enacted and you have to ramble on about vague times you were critical of the Trump admin instead. That's a deflection.


Offhand, I cannot think of anything Trump has done more or worse than Obama in terms of rolling back "a lot of transparency steps that Obama implemented." Actually, I cannot think of any transparency steps that Obama implemented... In fact, exactly the opposite. From where I'm sitting, no one has prosecuted and persecuted more whistleblowers than Team Obama. That's not transparency. And quite honestly, I hope I never do single out any one person because it's not the person that matters. If it's wrong for one then it's wrong for everyone -- past, present and future. So no, I won't single out one person and give a free pass to everyone else.

Trump administration blocks access to White House visitor logs

Also this:
Tracking Trump's Attacks on Transparency



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


HA! No you haven't. You are quite clearly assuming that these entities are thoroughly corrupt and working from there.


Nope. Refusing to take a position while recognizing various possibilities is the opposite of assuming. Assuming is taking a position when there is no way to know. I don't know who is and is not corrupt or criminal or whatever because I don't have all the facts to know. I haven't demanded anyone go to jail based on my beliefs or suspicions or possibilities. I have repeatedly demanded that very transparency you're whining about... the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And let the chips fall where they may.

I do know without a doubt that our Constitution was written as it was to demand and require that the government and therefore government officials must prove themselves and their actions first and foremost. It is up to them to prove they are acting appropriately. It is not up to me to assume they are because they said so. Nor because you said so.


This isn't even what I was talking about. I SPECIFICALLY mentioned Trump reducing government transparency that Obama enacted...


To which I replied that offhand I could think of no examples; and in the links you provided, I only found two such possible examples -- and those are iffy at best.

I also specifically said that I didn't see anything Trump had done that was worse than what Obama had done. Even the Washington Post has reported on Obama's unprecedented secrecy:

Obama promised transparency. But his administration is one of the most secretive


... and you have to ramble on about vague times you were critical of the Trump admin instead. That's a deflection.


In fact, having already directly addressed your specific issue, I then spoke to related general issues. This is not a deflection; it is an expansion. Apparently you are not willing or prepared to do so.

I hear that happens in echo chambers.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Ask away--I'm by far NOT an expert, especially on this particular matter, but I may be able to answer some.




posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
sillyolme


No That was what the magazine paid the playboy bunny. Stormy only got 130k


point still made that the reason very well could be cause the lawyer paid off peeps with monies from oligarch.



posted on Apr, 11 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I'll add,

Robert Mueller, who was appointed to lead the FBI by #43, is widely respected on both sides of the aisle.

www.usatoday.com...

www.bbc.com...

www.bloomberg.com...




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join